Sunday, May 26, 2013

Conversation With a Pastor (Part 7)

The last time wrote I posted a short email that I had sent to the the Pastor.  I didn't get a response from him in the interim but I did write him a longer response to many of his questions.  He wanted to know what I believed about Jesus Christ and he wanted to know why a restoration and prophets in our day were necessary.  He wasn't that tactful about it but I didn't expect him to be.  The necessity of a Restoration and of modern day prophets completely undermines his interpretation of the Bible as well as the church he started without direct face to face revelation from God.  

The response that follows was given in very direct words.  I explained my belief in the divinity and Godship of Jesus Christ as well as the reason a restoration was necessary.  

_______


Pastor S,

In your previous message to me you mentioned a couple of things that you wanted me to expound upon; namely the deity of Jesus Christ as well as the need for a restoration of the Gospel.  

This is my personal testimony of Jesus Christ.

I know that Jesus Christ was the first born spirit child of Heavenly Father.  He is the creator of the universe and everything therein.  He created the Earth under the direction of his Father and was chosen to be the Savior of Mankind before the Earth was even created.  I know that he came to earth as the babe born in Bethlehem of Judea and lived in very humble and meek circumstances, yet he grew in favor with God and with man.  He lived a perfect life of service and love, never once sinning or going amiss of his Father's will.  I know that on a terrible night he worked out the Infinite Atonement, which is the means whereby redemption and resurrection can come to the entire human family.  He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemanie and bled from every pore because of the burden he had to bear.  I know that he felt the pains, sickness and infirmities of the entire human family and that he did this so that he might know how to succor us in our afflictions.  I know that he suffered the pain and paid the price for the sins of all mankind, that we might repent and be found clean from the stains of this world.  I know that he was lifted up upon the cross and suffered unimaginable pain, yet I know that he did it willingly, according to the will of the Father.  I know that he was resurrected on the third day and is now a glorified and perfect being with a body of flesh and bones.  He was the first fruit of those who slept and all shall rise like he did.  I know that he ascended into heaven to take his place on the right hand of the Father, and that he is clothed with glory and perfection.  He is the Lord of the Universe and will forever be our God.  

I hope that my words helped to express at least some of how I feel about the Lord.  Words do not do justice to the feelings of my heart, however.  Yet I hope they will suffice.  

Regarding the restoration of the gospel, I must say that I appreciate the way you worded your question.  It helped me to understand what you currently know about Mormon beliefs.  From what you said you seem to believe that Mormons think that the prophets in the Bible somehow "got it wrong."  I want to clear up the matter and say that we do not believe that.  At all.  We do not believe any of the prophets got it wrong.  In fact, they are what kept things right for so long!  Were it not for all of the prophets the work of the Lord would have had a rather difficult time getting off the ground.  If Adam were not a prophet then he would not have been able to converse with the Lord and know how to keep the commandments.  He wouldn't have known what commandments even were.  If it were not for Noah being a prophet then the entire population of the earth (including noah and the other seven people on the ark) would have been wiped out in the flood, because how would they know about its coming except by being warned by the Lord?  Were it not for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being prophets then we would have missed out on an infinite number of blessings that have come through their posterity.  Were it not for Moses the Lord's covenant people would have remained in bondage in Egypt because they would have not have been led out by a prophet of the Lord.  In fact, the Bible explicitly states, "surely the Lord, God, will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)  Prophets are the way that the Lord has always and will always communicate to his people upon the earth.  So, to be clear, Mormons reverence the prophets of the Bible and in no case have we ever claimed that they "got it wrong."  

The problem that seems to always come up, however, is the disobedience of the people whom the prophets are trying to lead.  This is an undeniable fact.  People have the ability to choose.  They can follow the counsel of the prophet or they can ignore it.  If they ignore it then there are usually pretty severe consequences (like in the case of the Flood) and this is where the problems come into play.  God has a perfect plan, but people are not perfect.  It must be terribly frustrating to God to have only imperfect people to work with, but he makes it work because he is all powerful and because he loves us.  So, even when people mess up (whether individually or as a whole) the Lord brings prophets into play to try and get the people back on track.  This is a very easy thing to see in the Bible.  It is also easy to see a pattern emerging and Mormons call these "dispensations."  Adam as a prophet was the first dispensation, Noah was another, Moses was yet another, and so on.  If God's plan was to only ever use the teachings of one prophet and never call new ones then we would only have the teachings of Adam and that would be (apparently) sufficient for salvation.  However, this is not the case at all and hopefully you can now see why prophets are vital to forwarding the work of the Lord.  

At this point I would bet that you are following the logic of this and aren't in total disagreement with it.  However, the part that will probably hold you up is when Jesus comes to the Earth.  For most protestants that event is the apparent end of prophets coming to the Earth, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus called many others (including the 12 Apostles) to carry on the work once he was gone.  I suppose I can kind of see where that mindset comes from, however to that I would argue that if the Lord didn't intend for this pattern to continue then He would not have given Peter the position he held as the chief Apostle, nor would more Apostles been chosen to fill the vacancy created after the death of Judas Iscariot.  The pattern was meant to continue, however it did not and this was due to persecution of the Church and the difficulties in keeping many different groups of saints living "sound doctrine" without constant correction and reproof from the Apostles.  By 110AD (and that is being generous, it was probably much sooner) all of the Apostles were killed, except for John the Beloved.  I believe the last time he was heard of was around 79AD (though I could be off on that one).  However, after that date, there is silence as far as the Bible is concerned.  There are no new writings from the Apostles (not in the KJV Bible anyway) because they were all gone, and after a time no new Apostles were called to fill vacancies.  So, what of prophets and of revelation?  It ceased for a time.  Surely God still heard and answered the prayers of those who remained faithful, however, how long can a person and their posterity remain true to a belief when there are no leaders and when there are very few, if any, writings from those inspired men?  The Bible as you and I know it really did not exist for quite some time after the turn of the first century AD.  Even still, those who could manage to get writings would only have fragments.  After the Catholic church formed it was nearly impossible for common people to have access to the scriptures.  The holy writings were hoarded by so called priests who cared for wealth and power more than for the salvation of their congregations.  And this is where the interesting part comes.  

The Catholic church claims that they are the Church that Jesus set up while he was on the Earth.  They claim divine authority through the Apostle Peter.  They consider him their first Pope and they feel that each of their Popes since Peter have held the authority that was originally given to Peter.  While there are glaring holes in this way of thinking the Catholics at least hold a unique position as far as Christianity goes.  I'll refer you to the following account for a more eloquent explanation.  This is from Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles during a church conference in April, 1928.


Many years ago I had an interesting conversation with a man who was a member of the Roman Catholic church. He was a great scholar; he must have had a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, and seemed to know all about history, science, law, philosophy, and all the rest of it. We were frank and friendly with each other, and one day he said to me:
 “You ‘Mormons’ are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between ‘Mormonism’ and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven’t a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and ‘Mormonism;’ but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and ‘Mormonism’s position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”
 “Doctor,” said I, “that is a very clear and concise statement, and I agree with it in almost every particular. But don’t deceive yourself with the notion that we ‘Mormons’ don’t know the strength of our own position. We know it better than you do. We know it better than any other people can know it. We haven’t all been to been college, we can’t all speak the dead languages, and we may be ignoramuses as you say; but we know we are right, and we know you are wrong.” I was just as frank with him as he had been with me.

From an objective point of view this is a very interesting, yet serious thing to think about.  If Catholics hold the rights and authority as passed down by Peter, then both Mormonism is wrong and every Protestant religion is wrong because we would all be apostate groups that broke off from the truth.  However, if Catholicism is wrong and never had the authority from Peter then the only other way for a Church to claim that authority is by way of a Prophet being called of God.  In either case (and this will be hard for you to hear) all Protestant churches do not hold the authority that was given to Peter, meaning all Protestant churches are false churches to one degree or another.  To be clear, that doesn't mean that everything they teach is wrong, but it does mean that they hold no right to the authority and divine revelation that Christ gave to his Apostles (and especially to Peter).  This means that they are not able to be God's authorized church on the earth.   

Now you may say what you will about Mormonism or about Joseph Smith or about our claim to revelation and divine authority, but you cannot deny that we hold a unique position in relation to the rest of Christianity.  Also, yes, we are Christians in one of the most strict senses I have ever known about.  

So, that is why a restoration was needed.  And if a restoration was not needed then we should all be Catholics.  It is as simple as that.  However, I know that a restoration was needed and I know that God has called prophets again in our day.  The divine authority has been restored to the earth by those who held it previously.  They have returned as resurrected beings with bodies of flesh and bones and have given that authority to God's chosen servants.  

Brian, I am certain that you are a good man and that you continually strive to serve God to the best of your ability.  I admire that and commend you for it.  Your dedication to God is admirable and you should continue forth in doing what you feel is the right thing to do.  I pray that you will be a good pastor to those who look to you for guidance and I hope you continue to grow.  I also hope that I have been able to adequately explain my position, and whether you agree with it or not, I hope that it at least makes sense to you.  If you have further questions I invite you to ask them.  However, I also hope that you will continue to ask God for guidance as well.  He loves us all, no matter what we believe and no matter what we may have done.  

Keep the faith brother,

Hal Waldram


PS  If you are one who is willing to read a lot, which I'm sure you are, then you may find the book Jesus The Christ by James E. Talmage to be very insightful.  I have read it many times and think that you would enjoy it.  I have never found a book that organizes the events of the Lord's life in the New Testament as well as that one.  Here is a link to it on Amazon if you are interested Jesus The Christ by James E. Talmage .  I think they even have a free Kindle edition.  

_______

After this message I never received a response.  I don't know what happened to the pastor.  I don't know if he even read my words or if he even cares to have an explanation at all of the need for a restoration, but it doesn't really matter.  I was able to bear my witness to him that Jesus is the Christ and that He has restored the fullness of the everlasting gospel in our days.  I was able to bear witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the Earth.  I was able to bear testimony to him that God has called new prophets in our day, who received direct revelation from Him.  These things are what is important.  Winning arguments or defending your position is of little import however, especially when compared to being able to boldly declare the truth to someone in darkness.  I was able to boldly declare my witness, and whether the pastor believed it or not makes no difference.  I declared the truth and, despite how preposterous it may sound to some people, I know that time will vindicate me.  

5 comments:

  1. Hal, I think you may have redefined the word "know." Some of these things you say you "know" appear to be things you believe. I am not trying to be philosophical and go Descartes on you, but rather am curious as to why you use to word know when it is just something you believe, or rather have faith in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You misunderstand. If I say I know then it is because I am certain and not because it is a belief.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hal, I am sorry to be so controversial on your website, as I have truly enjoyed reading this interaction between you and the pastor. I guess my question is how can you be certain? How is it not a belief? Please help me understand how this is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't mind controversy, especially when it is well intentioned and brings forth understanding. To be fair, there are many things that I do not know for sure, however there are other things that I DO know and, by default, knowing those things means that other things must be true.

    For instance, I have not seen Jesus Christ during mortality, however I know that he is the savior of the world because I have a testimony of it through the Holy Ghost. I know that the Book of Mormon is a true book and that it originated in the way Joseph Smith said it did, and by virtue of knowing this I also know that Jesus is the Christ, because the Book of Mormon testifies of him.

    The definition of the word "Know" is this -
    Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
    Have knowledge or information concerning.

    The definition of the world "Believe" is this -
    Accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of
    Accept the statement of (someone) as true.

    With these definitions, and in the context in which I used the word "know," it is proper to use either word. The only issue I have with this is that with the definition of "believe" it says "accept(ing) the statement of someone as true. Some of the things I know are not beliefs, because I know them independently of any other mortal.

    This is why I use the word "know."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess my spiritual journey has lead me to doubt knowledge based on feelings of the holy ghost. I have felt those feelings many times in my life and if that feeling testifies of truth then a lot of it contradicts and is really relevant on where I am at in my life. We do not have the golden plates today so I think one would be hard pressed to know that the book of mormon really came from them considering all the weird history with it. I think you could believe it, but to know would imply you were there and knew that independently of what you had studied and read, or been told.

    I guess I have always had a hard time with people using the word know, probably more so with myself then anything, because I have never felt like I knew. I knew of and about the way you defined knowledge above, I could tell you all about God and Jesus etc, but when it comes down to knowing God for myself would be a lot more faith based.

    I still enjoyed your conversation and am glad you shared it with us, I hope he responds to you.

    ReplyDelete